Republicans letting another winnable Senate seat slip away

[Grim Reaper]

Also, President Obama's slip of the tongue wasn't the primary focus of his speech. He wasn't making an argument that hinged on there being 57 states.

Todd Akin's speech on the other hand hinged entirely upon his misunderstanding. He wouldn't have even had a speech if it wasn't for his 'slip'.

[dgs49]

For anyone who believes that what he said was "hateful" (which is the official Democrat take on this), I would be happy to consider your reasoning.

I'm waiting.

[Grim Reaper]

By showing how completely uninformed he is about the subject, but also willing to legislate it, he has shown that he disregards women as being worthy of being able to decide for themselves what they can or can not do with their own bodies. It is a casual hatred toward the opposite sex, one that you seem to share in since you are defending his actions. Which I guess is why you don't want to think that his words are hateful since it would reflect upon yourself.

[rubato]

For anyone who believes that what he said was "hateful" (which is the official Democrat take on this), I would be happy to consider your reasoning.

I'm waiting.

The belief system expressed is that if she was really raped ("legitimately raped") then she cannot be pregnant. Therefore if she gets pregnant she was not raped, it was consensual sex, and thus she deserves to be tortured. (which is what they want to legitimate all aong)


It is a belief which can only exist among people who know no biological science at all meaning that Republicans are rich ground since they reject science.


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Rube, I think I follow your point, but I think you are inferring a level of malice and disregard that is not indicated anywhere in what he actually said.

Of course one aspect of the division between the factions on this issue is that one sides considers the refusal to to pay for a free government abortion to be "punishment," while the other side sees that as saving an innocent life.

Point taken.

[Grim Reaper]

The side that says it wants to save an innocent life should consider upping welfare then to take care of that innocent life it supposedly cares so much about.

[Gob]

A Republican candidate under fire for saying women's bodies can prevent pregnancy in rape cases has lashed out at party bosses who want him to quit.
Congressman Todd Akin said it was not right for the party establishment to over-ride Missouri voters who had picked him to run for the Senate.

In a new fundraising appeal, Mr Akin claims "the liberal elite" are trying to take down a "pro-life conservative".

But he has agreed not to attend next week's party convention.

Correspondents say the furore over Mr Akin's rape remarks could derail the Republican campaign to win control of the US Senate in November's elections.

Prominent Republicans have lined up to call on him to quit, while the party and its supporters have pulled the plug on millions of dollars of funding.

But Mr Akin struck his most defiant tone yet on ABC's Good Morning America programme on Wednesday: "The people of Missouri chose me, and I don't believe it's right for party bosses to decide to over-ride those voters."

He also continued to back-pedal from his comments last Sunday about "legitimate rape", accepting that the views he expressed were "medically wrong".

Although Tuesday was the final day for Mr Akin to withdraw from the race without a court order, he did not categorically rule out stepping aside at a later date.

"I'm never going to say everything that could possibly happen," he told ABC. "I don't know the future."

Mr Akin also confirmed that Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan had urged him to end his campaign.

During a 1998 Senate campaign in Arkansas, the Republican candidate Dr Fay Boozman claimed that hormones generated by fear usually prevented rape victims from getting pregnant.

Yet it is much older than that, indeed a favourite theory of 13th Century medicine.

Mr Akin may have many admirable qualities which recommend him to the voters of Missouri. But it seems strange that a 21st Century politician is willing to legislate on the grounds of old wives' tales.

Perhaps he should be explaining that, rather than his clumsy use of language.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19339960

[Lord Jim]

Although Tuesday was the final day for Mr Akin to withdraw from the race without a court order, he did not categorically rule out stepping aside at a later date.

"I'm never going to say everything that could possibly happen," he told ABC. "I don't know the future."

He would be the one to seek the court order, and my understanding is that if a candidate does so under Missouri law it would be granted pretty much automatically.

He would also incur costs for having ballots re-printed which could run several hundred thousand dollars, but believe you me, there would be a stampede of donors running to come forward to pay for that, and any other fees his withdrawal would entail....

The idiot has until September 25th to finally come to his senses.

[Crackpot]

To be replaced by who?

[Lord Jim]

Someone selected by the state GOP Central Committee...

My guess would be the guy he edged out in the primary, but it could be someone else.

McCaskill remains very vulnerable; just about any reasonably credible candidate would stand an excellent chance of unseating her.

[Crackpot]

at the same time I don't think many voters will be impressed by an 11th hour candidate. If he's not out by the end of the month I seriously doubt his replacement could gain enough ground to win.

[Lord Jim]

I don't know CP...

Two possible candidates were already running up until two weeks ago, and whoever it would be would have a ton of money rolling in...

Here's another possibility:

Ballwin's Ann Wagner, the GOP candidate running to replace Todd Akin in Missouri's second congressional district, is in the news as a possible replacement for Akin for U.S. Senate.

The speculation comes in the wake of Akin's Sunday comments involving "legitimate rape" and the ability of a woman to shut down a pregnancy. News outlets and pundits are speculating that even though Tuesday's 5 p.m. deadline has passed for Akin to drop out of the race, he and Wagner could potentially switch ballot positions in the November election.

The National Review quotes a "Missouri GOP consultant" with word that such a plan is in the works. The National Journal post notes that Wagner, once co-chair of the Republican National Committee, "has long standing connections with many on the state committee given her deep involvement in the Party on the state and national levels. This allows a woman to replace Akin, which almost all agree is the wisest choice..."

http://universitycity.patch.com/article ... -deafening

Another possibility being talked about in addition to the two who were defeated in the primary is Congresswoman Jo Anne Emerson , who has served 16 years in the House.

[Econoline]

Of course one aspect of the division between the factions on this issue is that one sides considers the refusal to to pay for a free government abortion to be "punishment," while the other side sees that as saving an innocent life.

Then how do you explain the wish of many Republicans to prevent abortion even to save a woman's life as anything other than an apparent distinction between an "innocent life" and a "guilty (i.e., deserving punishment) life"?

[Crackpot]

A ton of money easily countered by "last minute party insider" the less time there is between announcement and election the easier it is to smear (rightly or wrongly) the candidate as a party hack maneuvered into position in order to avoid scrutiny.

[Guinevere]

Rube, I think I follow your point, but I think you are inferring a level of malice and disregard that is not indicated anywhere in what he actually said.

Of course one aspect of the division between the factions on this issue is that one sides considers the refusal to to pay for a free government abortion to be "punishment," while the other side sees that as saving an innocent life.

What ass-crack did you pull "refusal to pay for free government abortions" as the policy of "one side?" That never has been the essence of the pro-choice policy.

As for the malice and disregard, of course you can't see it through your mysogynistic blinders. To help clear that up, I'm sending money to both Claire McCaskill and Planned Parenthood today -- perhaps I should send the donations in your honor.

[dgs49]

PMS, Guin?

The Federal Government has a longstanding policy of not paying for elective abortions, whether in the context of MEDICAID or otherwise. The question posed to Akin was whether he would support an exception to that policy in cases where a particular pregnancy resulted from a rape. So the discussion revolves around taxpayer-funded abortions - whether they would be available in one peculiar, extreme circumstance.

When the Federal government (i.e., me) pays for a person's abortion, I consider that to be a "...free government abortion."

I have only one ass-crack that I am aware of.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the "...essence of the pro-choice..." camp is that abortion should be totally unrestricted. It's disgraceful, but you own it.

[Big RR]

Do you have some other information on the question being answered other than that in the article attached to the initial post. What I see there is a question as to whether abortion should be a "legal option" in the case of rape (not whether the government should pay for it) and his answer is that thhe child (presumably the embryo or fetus) should not be punsihed for what the rapist did (after providing the ridiculous statement that a "legitimately" raped woman's body would magically not let it become pregnant. I see this as the essence of the pro-life/anti-abortion positiion--that the rights of the embryo/fetus should predominate as it is innocent of any wrongdoing--the fiction that a raped woman will not get pregnant palys well into this position.

As to the prochoice position being that abortions should be "unrestricted", I have never heard that--even the most ardent defender of abortion rights would restrict late term abortions in all but the most dire circumstances.

[Guinevere]

There is no doubt whatsoever that the "...essence of the pro-choice..." camp is that abortion should be totally unrestricted. It's disgraceful, but you own it.

Totally unrestricted, no. Carefully regulated, and easily accessible pursuant to the contours of Roe v. Wade, absolutely. And of course, both are completely different than any sort of "demand" for "free government abortions" as you opined in your OP.

Exactly, BigRR.

[Lord Jim]

I see this as the essence of the pro-life/anti-abortion positiion--that the rights of the embryo/fetus should predominate as it is innocent of any wrongdoing--the fiction that a raped woman will not get pregnant palys well into this position.

I don't know about that Big RR...

I don't see that crackpot theory necessarily playing well into even the most absolutist pro life position...they're two different kinds of things...

The question of when human life begins isn't a scientific question; it's a philosophical question, or a moral question, but not a scientific one. It's not a question science is fit or designed to answer. Science can answer questions about the achievement of various markers in fetal development like "when does brain activity begin", but it can't answer the question of when these markers add up to "human life begins" because science can only answer questions which lend themselves to scientific methodology, and that one clearly doesn't.

The question of whether or not the female human body secretes some sort of "enzyme" or "chemical" that prevents unwanted pregnancy on the other hand, is clearly a question that lends itself to refutation by scientific methodology.

[Grim Reaper]

PMS, Guin?

Remember, when a woman is mad at you, it must be her fault, not yours.

When the Federal government (i.e., me) pays for a person's abortion, I consider that to be a "...free government abortion."

It's not exactly "free" if you have to be raped first.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the "...essence of the pro-choice..." camp is that abortion should be totally unrestricted. It's disgraceful, but you own it.

That's just more strawman nonsense since you don't bother restricting yourself to reality.